F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop The design doesn't allow for easy replacement of components because it would complicate manufacturing and reliability.

The design doesn't allow for easy replacement of components because it would complicate manufacturing and reliability.

The design doesn't allow for easy replacement of components because it would complicate manufacturing and reliability.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
S
Sneakyginger8
Senior Member
580
04-14-2016, 08:58 PM
#1
It's unclear how such a design would work, but it seems unlikely because manufacturers rely on standardized socket shapes for compatibility. Changing the pin layout would likely break existing components and require major redesigns, making it impractical for mass production. This could also reduce the value of high-end boards if they become obsolete quickly.
S
Sneakyginger8
04-14-2016, 08:58 PM #1

It's unclear how such a design would work, but it seems unlikely because manufacturers rely on standardized socket shapes for compatibility. Changing the pin layout would likely break existing components and require major redesigns, making it impractical for mass production. This could also reduce the value of high-end boards if they become obsolete quickly.

P
pignkitty
Member
163
04-14-2016, 09:29 PM
#2
The issue isn't the pin layout itself; it's mainly about other components on the motherboard needing adjustments to match the particular CPU.
P
pignkitty
04-14-2016, 09:29 PM #2

The issue isn't the pin layout itself; it's mainly about other components on the motherboard needing adjustments to match the particular CPU.

G
Greeperakos
Member
174
04-15-2016, 10:54 PM
#3
It's often more about the end user than the socket itself, but usually it stems from expecting someone to replace a socket type item properly. It's also an extra expense that most people wouldn't use, so they don't invest time in making them consumer boards. Bios chips have limited space, though that's easy to resolve. The main issue usually lies with Intel prioritizing profit and altering the socket layout rather than simply claiming incompatibility due to backlash.
G
Greeperakos
04-15-2016, 10:54 PM #3

It's often more about the end user than the socket itself, but usually it stems from expecting someone to replace a socket type item properly. It's also an extra expense that most people wouldn't use, so they don't invest time in making them consumer boards. Bios chips have limited space, though that's easy to resolve. The main issue usually lies with Intel prioritizing profit and altering the socket layout rather than simply claiming incompatibility due to backlash.

C
ColumXB
Member
209
04-16-2016, 07:17 AM
#4
It doesn't seem connected to Intel at all. If Asus chose to design a removable socket motherboard, they have no control over that decision. While swapping the socket might not instantly fix compatibility with the new CPU, it remains a desirable feature. Asus could also evaluate the situation themselves to see if any adjustments would work. After all, they were the ones who restored AMD backward compatibility despite their own mistakes (but later corrected them).
C
ColumXB
04-16-2016, 07:17 AM #4

It doesn't seem connected to Intel at all. If Asus chose to design a removable socket motherboard, they have no control over that decision. While swapping the socket might not instantly fix compatibility with the new CPU, it remains a desirable feature. Asus could also evaluate the situation themselves to see if any adjustments would work. After all, they were the ones who restored AMD backward compatibility despite their own mistakes (but later corrected them).

R
RZYao
Member
75
05-03-2016, 02:14 PM
#5
Since the socket is only a minor component, it links to various devices on the board via wires. You'd need to adjust or modify them to fit different pin counts. ~Note: Besides trace count, their layout can shift across CPU generations. If pin 1-30 links to one CPU's memory bus and pin 500-530 to another, tracking it becomes difficult. Oh, but there is a solution. Intel might choose not to share future specifications or engineering samples with Asus due to contract breaches. Developing and testing a board requires time, so it could take months before Asus releases a new model after competitors do. Lastly, building a highly adaptable board that limits future sales isn't in the best interest of manufacturers either.
R
RZYao
05-03-2016, 02:14 PM #5

Since the socket is only a minor component, it links to various devices on the board via wires. You'd need to adjust or modify them to fit different pin counts. ~Note: Besides trace count, their layout can shift across CPU generations. If pin 1-30 links to one CPU's memory bus and pin 500-530 to another, tracking it becomes difficult. Oh, but there is a solution. Intel might choose not to share future specifications or engineering samples with Asus due to contract breaches. Developing and testing a board requires time, so it could take months before Asus releases a new model after competitors do. Lastly, building a highly adaptable board that limits future sales isn't in the best interest of manufacturers either.

M
Mirrek
Junior Member
19
05-13-2016, 07:28 PM
#6
Even if the signals were compatible, ASUS wouldn't be able to predict what the next socket would require. They also can't add a chipset that hasn't been developed yet and won't support the upcoming CPU. A socket change isn't just for show—it's meant to stop users from installing a processor that won't work on that system.
M
Mirrek
05-13-2016, 07:28 PM #6

Even if the signals were compatible, ASUS wouldn't be able to predict what the next socket would require. They also can't add a chipset that hasn't been developed yet and won't support the upcoming CPU. A socket change isn't just for show—it's meant to stop users from installing a processor that won't work on that system.

E
ExtremeG4
Junior Member
5
05-14-2016, 12:39 AM
#7
they would need to develop a fresh bios for compatibility with the updated chips, all systems would require thorough testing, the VRM must be robust enough for the new processors, the PCIe configuration needs alignment with the new system, the chipset might struggle to integrate with the new CPU, etc. Regarding AMD's situation, those initially incompatible models eventually became viable with newer chips—though they offered limited capabilities in terms of PCIe versions and power constraints. The reason AMD seemed more flexible was their consistent approach to standardizing I/O interfaces like DDR5. If a CPU maker wants to push boundaries with advanced features such as DDR5, preparing a motherboard becomes prohibitively expensive, often forcing buyers to opt for alternatives. As for ASUS's stance, it’s likely they have strict agreements with board manufacturers about what is feasible, ensuring access to necessary resources for design.
E
ExtremeG4
05-14-2016, 12:39 AM #7

they would need to develop a fresh bios for compatibility with the updated chips, all systems would require thorough testing, the VRM must be robust enough for the new processors, the PCIe configuration needs alignment with the new system, the chipset might struggle to integrate with the new CPU, etc. Regarding AMD's situation, those initially incompatible models eventually became viable with newer chips—though they offered limited capabilities in terms of PCIe versions and power constraints. The reason AMD seemed more flexible was their consistent approach to standardizing I/O interfaces like DDR5. If a CPU maker wants to push boundaries with advanced features such as DDR5, preparing a motherboard becomes prohibitively expensive, often forcing buyers to opt for alternatives. As for ASUS's stance, it’s likely they have strict agreements with board manufacturers about what is feasible, ensuring access to necessary resources for design.

N
Nejc007
Senior Member
707
05-26-2016, 01:59 AM
#8
It will be a key advantage for brands to increase prices by at least fifty dollars, though this isn't assured.
N
Nejc007
05-26-2016, 01:59 AM #8

It will be a key advantage for brands to increase prices by at least fifty dollars, though this isn't assured.

T
The_Red_Cross
Junior Member
9
06-02-2016, 09:12 PM
#9
It doesn't appear to align with Intel's goals since they produce and sell the CPU themselves. While Asus or other board partners might want to avoid this, it seems more likely they factored in testing, BIOS updates, and valuation into their pricing for the hot swap socket. Including these costs in the base price of the motherboard makes sense from a business perspective. This approach could help justify selling premium mobos with more chipset options, similar to the transition from Sky Lake to Coffee Lake. It seems reasonable that if you're already invested in an ultra-premium board, you likely already have the necessary VRM.
T
The_Red_Cross
06-02-2016, 09:12 PM #9

It doesn't appear to align with Intel's goals since they produce and sell the CPU themselves. While Asus or other board partners might want to avoid this, it seems more likely they factored in testing, BIOS updates, and valuation into their pricing for the hot swap socket. Including these costs in the base price of the motherboard makes sense from a business perspective. This approach could help justify selling premium mobos with more chipset options, similar to the transition from Sky Lake to Coffee Lake. It seems reasonable that if you're already invested in an ultra-premium board, you likely already have the necessary VRM.

I
Its_Brian2002
Member
74
06-03-2016, 02:54 AM
#10
It's a quite modest figure.
I
Its_Brian2002
06-03-2016, 02:54 AM #10

It's a quite modest figure.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next